I'm a sceptic who is paid by the Government.
I receive an Age Pension of around $200 every fortnight. It is a huge amount compared with the income of someone in Africa who doesn't have electricity and lives in low class, primitive conditions.
Why do you not object to keeping such primitive people in such squalor?
No, don't tell me that we should give to those poor people. Who do you think will benefit from that cash?
Yes the mongrel at the top with his Swiss bank account.

oh dear oh dear

When people were told smoking caused cancer, many didn't want to believe it becasue they liked smoking. It didn't change the facts that had been rigourously tested. People still smoke...and still get lung cancer. The science is good and stands up to scrutiny.

Now people are told the climate is changing and the human race is at least partially responsible. To do something about this means changing comfortable lifestyles. There are those who don't want to believe because they don't want to change. This has nothing to do with the science, which is good, but more to do with some personal preference not to accept the science. There are few, if any, sceptics who can deconstruct the science and provide an alternative view that stands up to scrutiny. A few people jumping up and down about emails or latching on to a half-baked theory doesn't change that.

The bad news is, that you are going to have to change because climate change is causing the price of water to go up signficantly, the same with the cost of power, and the cost of a lot of food and transport. This will flow on into many other areas. There are other consequences of scare resource too.

Personally I don't care if people change because of a belief in climate change or just pure economics; but they will have to change if they want to maintain a balanced lifestyle as water and power become more expensive.

JulianC, so who is denying that the climate changes?

I am skeptical of mankind's involvement, but do go on with your little delusion that "deniers" don't believe the climate changes at all, really that is one of the most stupid things I have ever encountered and it's a reflection on the AGW believers that they continue to sprout this misinformation and rubbish, then expect to be taken seriously.

"The evidence of a 'conspiracy' by resources corporations to deny the evidence for climate change is documented in "Climate Cover-Up" by James Hoggan (Greystone, 2009).

Really? If there was any "evidence" you could surely prosecute, but you don't do you because the book is loose "Opinion", that's all.

Even Climate Audit disowns this sort of conspiracy theory rubbish.

"That leaves those who continue to deny the evidence and so place at risk all future human generations morally on a par with holocaust deniers - except that, unless we do something about it soon, the holocaust will be a small event in comparison."

What evidence is that, that the climate changes, of course it does, hardly relevant. See above.

Holocaust deniers, for what being skeptical? People who resort to arguments based on insults are idiots, self proclaimed - so face it, you don't want to convince anyone, you just want harangue with a crowd of like believers, don't you?

"Risk all future generations", jeez you got a big dose of panic and hysteria at the group think brigade center didn't you?

"unless we do something soon", like when this year, next year, 20 years 50 years - come on when? When is soon?

What evidence do you have for a timeframe to avert the "risk to all future generations"? Another book is it? A website? Or is it a personal theory?

This is baseless "scare the children" type hysteria and claptrap, of the religious "you'll go to hell if you don't change your ways" type.

Grow a brain son - you deserve to be ridiculed for reciting this eco hysteria mantra, next it will be "the world is ending!"

Extraordinary article! We have nightly melting glaciers and steam puffing power station (implied pollution) almost nightly on TV, repetitive media announcements of proof of climate change (implied to be man-made) as well as the man-made announcements and this writer expresses concern about the 'mind control' abilities of the opposing team. We have a 'so called' scientific organisation, the UN IPCC, feeding the world's media with headline disaster scenarios generated by computers with lots of assumption inputs or lifted from non-scientific WWF and Greenpeace campaign propaganda material. We've got alarmist scientists trying to prevent sceptical material from being published in science journals and this writer is crying foul for the alarmist team.
The writer is concerned about how future sea levels will affect the poor, but is blind to how a carbon economic regime will immediately affect the cost of food and fuel for the world's poorest. How do the world's poorest lift themselves out of poverty when the price of everything shoots up and the government converts their backyard into a carbon sink to appease the Green movement.
The article touches on many other related issues which are worthy discussions in their own right, but the author seems to be blaming all the world's ills on whoever disagrees with her climate alarmist belief.

Matthew 7:16

That article by Dr Chris James is nonsense. It may be her opinion and she is certainly entitled to express it but that doesn't change what it is.For years the "sky is falling " aka AGW/climate change zealots have been getting the media coverage. When ever some one disagreed or argued against the AGW proposition they were vilified and ridiculed but now the papers ,always after circulation have moved to a more neutral position. Certainly East Anglia has focused their and their readers thinking on the substance rather than the hype and thank God for that.
For me I have always been skeptical because the hype never matched what I had read over many years on the planets history. It always seemed to me that Climate Change was a constant and will continue to be until the planet is engulfed by the Sun.
For me the key question which few seem interested in is what "drives" the climate.Once you have that worked out then its possible to accurately forecast climate change and work towards learning to live with it.
As for Rudds carbon tax that just makes no sense at all. To great a cost for too little return even if CO2 was a problem which I seriously doubt.No politicion having the welfare of his citizens at stake would ever impose that burdon on them unless there was some sort of hidden agenda. Does Rudd want to be the next Sec Gen of the UN as a for instance. There has to be some reason for this madness.